rdieter at math.unl.edu
Tue Jul 10 18:19:00 UTC 2007
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> Isnt there something about dropping the compat naming scheme and going
> to something else? Or am I confused about a different email thread.
The guidelines were (will soon be?) updated to relax the rules, to leave
this more at the discretion of maintainers.
> The first question I would ask is what are your customers wanting?
> What packages need a Fast Fourier Transform and what do a majority of
> customers running on EL want it to be? If the scientific community is
> using lots of fftw2 versus fftw3 then that might be a good reason to
> keep to older name schemes.
Mostly, all I've heard is one *very* vocal rpmforge user.
>From scrounging upstream, fftw (3) clearly is the hear and now, fftw2 is all
> The second question is what is the new packaging name scheme? If the
> name scheme is still compat-<package>-<major-minor> I would go with
> that.. if it isnt then I would go with something like: fftw_22 fftw_3x
> as the name schemes
match rpmforge: fftw (v2.x) and fftw3
> Third I would go for an open and documented reasoning document from
> both forge and you on why the names are different and how a user would
> be able to deal with this issue.
Easier to simply match, than to diverge + document I think.
A bonus is that it's easier to change our minds later (ie, easier to migrate
fftw/fftw3 -> fftw2/fftw than the other way around).
More information about the epel-devel-list